A Missouri judge just sentenced former college wrestling champ Michael Johnson (pictured) to 30 years behind bars for “recklessly transmitting HIV” after a jury found him guilty of exposing multiple partners to the virus.

23-year-old Johnson tested positive for HIV in January 2013. At the time, he was a star wrestler at Lindenwood University. According to court records, he had unprotected sex with multiple men who he met on hookup apps between the time he tested positive and October 2013, when he was arrested. As a result, he was accused of infecting at least one man and exposing four others to the virus.

Under Missouri state law, it is illegal not to disclose your HIV status to a sexual partner. Johnson testified that he did inform his partners that he was HIV-positive, but prosectors argued otherwise, saying that he “was totally irresponsible and placed countless people at risk.” One his sex partners went so far as to say that if Johnson was not locked away, “he will infect people for his own sick purposes. He has lost the privilege to be free!”

This week, Judge Jon Cunningham told Johnson that he had committed “very severe” crimes before handing down the 30 year sentence.

“The main thing is the profound effect your actions have had on the victims and their families,” he scolded.

Johnson’s attorney, Heather Donovan, pleaded with the judge for a lighter 10-year prison term for her client, saying that contracting HIV “is not a death sentence anymore,” but the judge, obviously unfamiliar with the fact that everyone is responsible for their own safety, handed down a draconian sentence anyway.

Johnson’s conviction once again raises questions about America’s HIV criminalization laws, which activists say ignore three decades of medical science, fail to actually reduce infection rates, and disproportionately punish black men. Both the American Medical Association and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have publicly condemned laws criminalizing HIV.

“The sentence reflects the continuing ignorance and HIV and the unfortunate silence of state health officials who should be openly, publicly addressing it,” Catherine Hanssens, director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy, a legal resource center for people affected by HIV told Fusion.

The publication also points out that Johnson would have received a less severe punishment if he had killed someone in a drunk driving accident. In Missouri, killing someone while driving under the influence is considred a “Class C” felony, and jail time cannot exceed seven years.

In a brief statement, Johnson said: “I never want anyone to have to go through the pain” of having HIV.

Just curious: what sentence would the judge hand down if the defendant had been a white female prostitute who had passed along ANY STD? A fine and a pill? I am NOT defending Johnson for his stupid/lethal actions.

So he could have killed somebody while driving drunk and would have not gotten more than 7 years? The law seems a bit out of date.

That said, HIV may not be an automatic death sentence, but it certainly adds a lot of inconvenience to life to say the least according to people that have it. Multiple medications, that can have side effects, costs and other things like that.

So 30 years might be excessive if he transmitted, but if he knowingly did it, then at minimum he could be charged with assault and be sued for the cost, pain and suffering of anybody he infected it would seem.

This is one jury I would have demanded NOT to be on. Let me get this strait: you meet someone online on a pickup, one-night-stand website that the only thing you both agree to is you are both turned on. Your also more or less the same age. You go to his house or he comes over to your house. You ask him if he is “ok” and he lies and says yes. YOU BELIEVE HIM AND HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX because you are that turned on to him and he to you but now you want him to spend the rest of his life (more or less) behind bars thanks to YOUR contribution of not using or insisting on protection. And YOU are the victim.

Sorry, but I disagree with your “victim” claim. If you had sense enough to ask if he was “ok” then you also had sense enough to know you didn’t know a damn thing about this person that you let into you home or he let you into his, which ever the case. You never thought the guy could be an armed robber, crazed serial killer…..none of that ran thru your mind when you met this stranger online? The only thing you thought you were “ordering” was instant sexual gratification that should cost you “nothing’?

As I said, I could not be on this jury. Were I forced to be on it I would have sent a note to whomever would listen that yes, I know the guy is guilty, but I think the ignorance on the part of the “victim” should be weighed in during his sentencing as well. I’m not saying that MAYBE he should be sent to jail for failing to tell the truth but thirty years is too long. It took TWO to tango here and he is just as young and innocent as they were/are. This kid does not look like a rocket scientist and came across a disease at a young age that I doubt, at twenty-three, he realizes what a life sentence it really is. No strong armed robbery, gun/drug possession/gan affiliation….none of that shit/baggage is this college attending young man bringing in front of that jury. Just a kid who was turned on by someone who contacted him (regardless of who sent a first greeting to whom) for sex. Lighten up a little on the kid. That sentence was too harsh.

Shouldn’t we also have laws criminalizing say HPV or Hepatitis too. Make people tell everyone they’ve had it or face 30 years in prison. Both of which can kill or require life long treatments. Just ask members here like joey.

Not saying he’s not guilty and some punishment is good but I’m with Bob on this. 30 years is too much. So fucking tired of these little queens I mean “victims” running to the authorities for making bad choices instead of owning them. I seriously doubt the conversation was even brought up in the first place other then hurry up and Fuk me with that big black cok stud.

This is akin to going to say a bathhouse and having a bareback fuckfest all night and then a week later it’s…OMG I’m positive. It’s the bathhouses fault. I want justice!!

He deserves everything he gets. HIV would screw with a person’s physical and mental health for life. Dueces…..no one should be forced to deal with medications for life. This comes from someone who has dealt with a sicko but yet lucky I didn’t trust his bitch ass

@AtticusBennett: This sentence will tell people it’s much better to not get tested and thus have no criminal liability. I would tell anyone in Missouri now.. “Do not ever let anyone know that doesn’t need to about your status”. All you need is an accusation and you’re going to prison for pretty much the rest of your life.

These idiots as in all involved have succeeded in doing the exact opposite of helping anyone.

Once you know you have it, the best way to not pass it on is to use condoms and the second is to get on retro viral therapy until your virus load reads zero. In venues where there is anonymous bareback sex, nobody asks, nobody discloses. (And condoms are rare)

I have absolutely no sympathy for the kind of vermin who would deliberately infect others with HIV. Johnson knew he was infected and yet chose to have unprotected sex with others. He’s a scum bag, end of story.

A guy in California gets 6 months & this guys gets 30 years. Something is wrong with a state by state judicial system. Knowingly having sex while HIV+ without protection is attempted murder. Having unprotected sex oneself is potential suicide. Not informing each other of one’s HIV status takes away a person’s right to choose to have sex or not. Wise up people.

Unless he raped any of these men, I don’t see how the punishment fits the crime, though being black is enough in this country to make any infraction seem a hundred times worse than it actually is. There is culpability on the part of each of his partners, who obviously allowed him to penetrate them without a barrier, sooooo…yeah….

Meanwhile, nearly every week in this country another story hits the news about yet another police office who’s either assaulted or killed an unarmed black person because s/he “felt threatened,” and almost none of them have to worry about facing charges, let alone being convicted and serving substantial prison time.

I urge everyone to back-click to the original Buzzfeed article (click on the link to Queerty’s May 2015 story, which has the link to Buzzfeed).

The college student “victim” who reported him to the cops admitted “he had bareback sex ‘with people I barely knew.’ In those cases, he said, ‘I knew they were clean,’ sometimes just ‘by looking at them.'”

Sounds like a bunch of geniuses at that college!

A law like this discourages people from getting tested AT ALL, because you can’t get prosecuted if you don’t know for sure you have it. That’s the worst of both worlds. Someone HIV+ and UN-tested will be highly infectious. But transmission is almost impossible for anyone properly medicated and undetectable. So the law is totally ass-backwards (pun intended).

It’s just a horrific decision. As others have noted, you have people who rape children and get minimal or no jail time. LOOK AT THAT DUGGER MONSTER, who molested his sisters and another child! You have people who run others down in DUIs, and do minimal or no jail time. You have people who launched a war based on lies that has led to 100,000+ deaths and injuries, and others who have left people on the street, penniless and with zero health care, leading to certain death, yet they walk free.

Yet this young man gets THIRTY YEARS for not disclosing his sero status, even though everyone–everyone, on Queerty and everyone else–should assume that unless you know someone has tested negative, they could be positive for HIV and any other STI.

And the stupid judge actually had the nerve to claim that Johnson would do the same thing if let off, yet how could anyone paying even the slightest attention not know about this young man who’d been prosecuted for this non-crime? Why should or would anyone in Missouri and other states with such laws get tested now knowing that if they don’t announce their serostatus they could be brought up on charges worse than most other felons face?

What is wrong with you people? If I get killed by a drunk driver it should be considered my fault because I accepted the risk by going out to the street? If I am allergic to peanuts and consume food that does not state the ingredient and die, the company its not liable because I should expect some companies to lie? If I pick up a hitch-hiker to give them a ride and they kill me, it’s my fault for assuming the person did not have bad intentions?

I agree that the punishment was too harsh, however, we should deter behavior where people are knowingly infecting others. I don’t think this law discourages people to get testes. True, if you don’t get tested then you can have sex without getting prosecuted if you transmit the virus. At the same time, if you do have the virus, you’ll have 5 years to live without treatment. What do people prefer, being able to have bareback sex without fear of persecution or living beyond 5 years…?

@onthemark: “An analogy might be if you were killed by a drunk driver, while you were passed-out drunk & lying in the middle of the street.” ??? What is that crap? Your analogy is a bad anology too, by the way.

I put the blame on this kids fate squarely on the back of the attorney/public defender who defended him. He should have been able to grill this accuser and the fact that the accuser did admit he had bareback sex before means he can not pinpoint this to one person.I find it right at hard to believe there are no bathhouses in Missouri. Was the accuser a member of any of them? They hooked up on a site where sex parties (breeding, bareback, watersports, fisting, toys etc…..) are advertised that are held in hotels, private homes…damn near anywhere. Did they ask had he been to anything like that? When was the last HIV test done that he had?

Here is why I bring that up, or put it that way. When one has HIV they are reported to the health department, regardless of how they got infected. As soon as the health department receives notice that there is an HIV infection case involving a male do you honestly NOT believe it is not assumed the person is gay? Within weeks of being notified the health department, by law, has to contact the person. If they come to the persons home for an interview and the person gets “belligerent’ such as telling them to get the fuck out or slamming the door in their face how many of you are aware the worker can come back with the police and get the answers they seek? Imagine the reaction of a god-fearing white christian who can’t stand gays nor blacks and in a bad mood when/should something like that happens? You think those clerks in the deep south who don’t want to hand out marriage licenses are a trip try those who know all they have to do is involve the law in regards to your non cooperation to a health matter.

You people have NO idea just where/how people with HIV are viewed in the eyes of the law. Get into a fight with some one (sexual orientation be damned), beat the living shit out of them and they call the police and say you assaulted them and you have HIV. All they have to do is SAY you spat at them or that blood from your bloody nose, mouth, eye got on them during the fight and now you are facing attempted murder for defending yourself. The accusation alone will cause the court to have to send you to a doctor to have a test and god forbid if it comes back positive and you didn’t know you had it.

Throw a good for nothing low life out of your house who already knew your status but he calls the police saying he “believes” you infected him and you didn’t tell the can’t- keep-a-damn-job bastard about your infection. Guess whose wrists the cuffs are going to go around based on his/their lie? Such a situation happened recently in Louisiana and regrettably the poor kid was in his twenties, black and NO ONE stood with him. Just his word against the lazy bastard he told to get out of his life. Guess who they believed? Hint: it wasn’t the kid who worked and provided all the comforts of home for the lazy fuck.

NOW do you all understand why/where this has gone too far in the case of this sentencing being as harsh as it was? I went online and have been checking all over the country for SOMETHING TO BE SAID from the OBVIOUSLY nonexistent black gay groups about this sentencing. On the webste KMOV.com (Saint Louis television station) there is one LONE white guy complaining about not only the harsh sentence but also about how HIV is being abused by the court. I commend him for his courage to do what is right, regardless of how this law/treatment is aimed at a specific group, more or less. Black males. Really, thirty damn years for being turned on it too much to bear for anyone. Sounds like powder cocaine versus crack all over again to me. But alas, try telling that to “them” and see their reaction. If EVER there were a time for a certain group to get organized this is it. They sat back and said HIV was a white boys disease back in the 1980’s while their community was being devastated by the very disease and now they are going to sit back and silently watch people get put away for life for being nothing more than human. Watch, I bet they do just that.

If any gay man reads the details of this case and think this sentence is nothing but ridiculous, then we truly have a long ways to go. The medical expert for the prosecution was nothing short of a disgrace. I hope he is no longer treating HIV patients.

30 years seems excessive. I think the guys who had unprotected sex with this guy are responsible for their own health, but I think we should also send the message that you can’t just lie to people and spread your virus.

The fact of the matter is, you assume EVERYONE you hook up with has something, and you wrap that shit up.

@Alberto: Your examples are hella off. First of all, there is no inherent risk of walking out in the street and getting hit by a drunk driver… if you’ve managed to look both ways before crossing the street, you’ve done your job in protecting yourself. Furthermore, you’re not asking the guy going down the street if he’s drunk, obviously, so that analogy does not compute.

Companies that do not state that there are ingredients in their products that can trigger allergic reactions CAN be held liable, but that is an example of indirect accountability; unless someone from the company is watching you eat those products and LIES about there being peanuts in them, then it is not the same.

Finally, as far as the hitchhiker is concerned, YOU accept the consequences the minute you allow a stranger in your car, so that analogy actually helps in this guy’s case. There is some personal responsibility that must be factored in here, and while I do not by any means condone what this guy did, it is foolish and reckless in this day and age to be raw dogging with anybody that you did not leave the testing office with and confirm they were negative.

If a person walked around the mall with a revolver containing only one bullet, giving it a spin, pointing at people and pulling the trigger……How many years in prison would that person get?
I find it pathetic that a person cares more about having an orgasm than caring about maybe killing someone.

@AtticusBennett: It’s interesting that consent apparently means nothing to you. These men did not consent to having unprotected sex with an HIV+ individual. When he lied in order to have such sex, he violated their consent. Your attitude reminds me of the attitude towards date rape a few decades ago. “If she consented to giving him a handjob, then she can’t complain if he sticks it in her p*ssy.” Hopefully, you’ll someday see what complete BS your position is. People have an absolute right to not only decide IF they consent to sex, but to set the PARAMETERS OF that consent.

The perceived recklessness of the victims in wanting to have unprotected sex is a different issue entirely. Bringing it up is like bringing up the fact that a female rape victim wore revealing clothing, or walked alone late at night, or went home with a stranger. Even if it’s unwise, it doesn’t justify the violation of consent.

The point about incentivizing non-testing is a red herring. This guy knew his status and lied about it anyway. The public health impact is marginal, anyway. People decline to get tested because they are trying to fool themselves, not others. Besides, you don’t abandon the principle of informed consent for minimal public health benefits.

This sentence is ridiculous. If the others barebacked with him, it’s highly likely they barebacked with others. And this wasn’t rape, but consensual sex in which the participants chose to not require condoms. Blame is NOT one sided here.

@Stache99: Wrong. Hot or not, the minute you let some stranger in your car, you accept the danger that comes along with that. Or do you just go around picking up strangers on the side of the road? Because I sure don’t.

@Xzamilio: Ha. Trying to keep this relevant to this particular situation. I wouldn’t but I’m sure these guys being in the heat of the situation might’ve known better but he looks healthy and hot so why not bareback with him err…I mean..pick him up.

A bunch of dumbasses on here thinking that we’re condoning what this dude did… we’re not in the slightest. But, it’s a new freaking day and age, and that playing ignorant to HIV and its effects on the gay community are over. Like I said, you assume ANYONE you are with is infected with something and wrap that shit up. Fuck “I’m clean” and leaving it at that… if you’re gonna go out having sex with people you barely know, fucking protect yourself!!

And by the way, @Stefano, I didn’t make any analogies… it’s called countering, you moron.

Ridiculous, now a day diabetes is considered by doctors a much
more serious disease then HIV and so is Hepatitis C,
I am not saying he did a good thing, but 30 years in prison ???
I hope he appeals the verdict, responsibility does lies with both sides,
most people don’t even know if they are HVI + and many lie.
This judge is an idiot and he should have asked the victims, “why didn’t you insist to put a condom on?”
Clearly nobody is the winner in this case, but this shows how little straight people know about HIV, didn’t they bring an HIV expert to testify in the court room?
How about Herpes, should we criminalize that too?
People both sides are responsible for their own actions.

@Merv: Merv, they did agree to have unprotected and as such dangerous sex!! No bones about that, the so called victims here are as guilty as the convicted, in this day and age especially in the
gay community we all know better, slip a condom on all the time no matter what the guys says, why??? Because people lie or they simply might not know.

Nothing more ridiculous then guys with negative results on hands, Immagine the conversation” last month I was neg!-other guy- Really?? And what did you do right after the test? Fuck an entire army barrack?”

@Stache99: Yeah, but that’s the problem… people assuming that someone “looks clean” so they are clean. I’ve been consistent in saying that you assume everyone you’re with has something and wrap it up… the kind of STDs and STIs are there are serious, and just looking at someone or taking them at their word at this stage of the game is dangerous and foolish. Is it victim blaming? I sure don’t intend for it be, but as reprehensible as this guy is, there should have been some awareness. Of course condoms are not 100 percent effective, but they are better than none.

And with that said, I initially said that 30 years was excessive, but honestly, I don’t really care that he got sentenced that long. He knowingly spread HIV, so it shows that at the very least he is willing to spread a dangerous disease, and at the most, he has little regard for the lives of others.

@Stefano: No fucking SHIT, Sherlock!!! Did I say he deserved to get off scot free??? Did I even say that if you get killed by a hitchhiker, the hitchhiker deserves to get off??? You dishonest shitbag, don’t put words in my fucking mouth when I can just tell you what I’m saying. When you let someone in your car that you don’t know and that you picked up on the side of the road, you are putting yourself at risk. You with your human brain should understand that dangers that comes with picking up people you don’t know… so YES, there is a level of responsibility and a level of risk you take on by doing so… but that does not mean that you are asking to be killed by someone, and it is NOT the same as having unprotected sex with someone who tells you they don’t have HIV because you are in a position to protect yourself then and there.

OR… you can just do the same thing in both scenarios and not let anyone inside.

I’m done talking to you… PERIOD. Reply all you want, but your level of intellectual dishonesty warrants no further response from me, from here on out.

@Realitycheck: So, people don’t have a right to set parameters on their consent?

Example #1: “We can have anal sex, but only if you’ve tested negative within the last three months. Otherwise, I’m not comfortable doing that, and I only consent to mutual masturbation until you get tested.”

Example #2: “You can f*ck me, but only if you wear a condom.”

It’s OK to disregard at will the restrictions in both examples, or just when you say it’s acceptable to do so?

@Bob LaBlah: Actually there are test that will tell you who infected who with HIV, HIV mutates so each person has a different combinations of strains, matching the person that gave the virus, not sure how exact the test is, but if the test had found a match, it would have been an entire new warm of cans.
I do agree how ever the accuser did have consensual unprotected sex, so I really do not feel sorry for him.
Of course doesn’t mean this guy should just walk away, he cheated and not one
but several people, on the other hand he could have testify that he had warned them about and as long as he stood his ground the accuser would not have been able to prove his case.

Johnson said he disclosed his HIV status. Plaintiffs said he didn’t. I believe the plaintiffs. If he had disclosed they wouldn’t be infected. At the same time we need to take responsibility assuming everyone is infected and protect ourselves. People will lie Most people don’t know their sick. Some people way say anything to get laid!! I know lots of thirsty guys most in open relationships are sick – lying to everyone! There’s so many hot men out there with 100s of options You are not their priority. Get tested!! Talk to your Doctor about PrEP!! No one should EVER test positive in this day and age!!

@Merv: =Merv, yes people have the right to set parameters at their own risk because, people do have the duty to protect themselves, if one agree to bareback sex, one has to be an idiot (sorry) and ready to accept the risk, after all it is a risk and the accuser did accepted to take it, that cannot be denied.
AGAIN I am not saying the accused did the right thing, I am just pointing out the accuser should also take responsibility for his own actions, and the sentence is
completely inappropriate given medical advances and the accuser own behavior.

Going back to your examples one and two, it should also be noted, that setting parameter in this kind of situations, might be more to make one feel better then to actually protect, testing negative in the past doesn’t mean one is not infected in the present, so option two is the more safe, yet condoms do break, now, would the accuser have sue also if a condom broke? I have no doubt about it, it is easier to point fingers then to take responsibilities.

I have argued, for years, that engaging in unprotected sex after lying about one’s own HIV status is tantamount to committing rape because there is no way for the other individual to have provided informed consent to the sex. [So I find myself agreeing with the people on here who say this is similar to rape.] Having said so, 30 years strikes me as excessive punishment. Murderers get away with less. ….. Sometimes I think that the better punishment would be to make the perp pay for the other person’s HIV meds for the rest of his life. Sort of the gift that keeps on giving….

There is still the issue of people who engage in unprotected sex and then complain when it turns out that their partner was HIV+. At best, that individual trusted someone way too much while knowing way too little about him. At best, this man was naive and this is very sad.

At worst, the man who engages in unprotected and then complains about the becoming infected with STDs as a consequence is a hypocritical idiot. If you know and ignore the risks, there comes a time when — at the risk of sounding like I am blaming the victim — you should accept some responsibility for protecting yourself.

Truly, there is enough blame to spread around. And no matter how you slice it, our efforts to get people to take this stuff seriously enough to protect themselves and to protect others are falling way short of where they need to be.

@Gus Anderson: “If a person walked around the mall with a revolver containing only one bullet, giving it a spin, pointing at people and pulling the trigger……How many years in prison would that person get?”

His “victims” invited him to put the “gun” in their mouths. It’s an illness, not a weapon.

When you agree to have unprotected sex with a stranger, you assume EVERY risk involved in that decision, INCLUDING the possibility that that person may be lying about his STI status. Your onus is not mitigated because your partner either lied to or misled you. That is the chance you WILLINGLY take. Is what this guy did deplorable? Unquestionably. How and ever, I don’t weep for people whose poor discernment leads to dire ramifications. This ain’t rape. He took because they gave freely.

@tdh1980: They didn’t agree to unprotected sex. They agreed to have sex under the condition that the person believed he was HIV-. Admittedly, that’s not much protection, but it’s their right to set the parameters for consent how they want. He not only wasn’t HIV-, he knew for a fact that he was HIV+. People don’t have a right to lie to you about their HIV status. Even in California, whose laws are absurdly lenient in this regard, as we found out in that recent case, it can still get you 6 months in prison. No one is demanding you weep for the victims. They’ve already received the dire ramifications you seem to want for them.

@Jared MacBride: I don’t find it odd that you managed to read the entire comment and post nothing backing up your claim of ignorance. Come back with some quotes and examples from the comment and then we might talk further. To go any further with this would be tantamount to child abuse.

Ignorant is all in the eyes of the reader but I find it interesting how you didn’t call me a liar. To me, that is what matters the most.

Bullshit. You never expect a gay man to tell you the truth, even if you ask. You only assume he’s POZ and protect your self. That approach has kept me NEG. Why is he responsible for those helpless victims in an age of information?

@Bob LaBlah: I agree that it’s often very difficult to prove consent when it comes to sex. But that’s always been the case. I don’t know why some people are so eager to throw up their in this type of case when we don’t in others.

He’s an asshole and definitely deserves to be punished…. Maybe not 30 years, but then again, maybe…

I was stupid enuf to believe the man I was with for 4 1/2 years but didn’t find out I was positive until he died of AIDS in 94. Yes it is a life sentence of nastiness. Medication, lipodystrophy, depression, social anxiety… I’d never want someone else to have to go thru all of this.

Hell I was 29 when this started…

I’d love to know how many of the people saying this is unfair and it’s continuing the stigmatization of HIV positive people, are actually HIV positive? If you aren’t HIV positive, you just don’t know. YOU DON”T. And I pray you never do…

@Louie Mars: How do you think this guy gets HIV? The différence is that he knew he was HIV+ and had sex with them without protection. If i were HIV+ (which i’m not) and i knew it, i will NEVER have sex without protection because i’m a responsable person. It is his responsability to have protected sex with other people. It’s call being an adult. I have no pity for him.

@Realityis: I’m sorry for your condition. I’m in the healthcare field and treatment has progressed so greatly from the time you were infected, that it’s not even comparable. Patients are now being seen by internists, instead of infectious disease doctors. If everyone gets tested and those who are positive get treatment, this disease can be eradicated.

In regards to the young man, he should be punished, but 30 years in ridiculous. His “victims” are not blameless, just dumb. That’s why HIV is so tricky. It’s a condition passed by the most natural of all acts: Sex.

Who did he transmit it too and unless he raped that person, how did that person miss the millions of advertisements and warnings about not having safe sex? If a woman becomes impregnate and blames the man what does that mean? The man won’t get impregnate so who is not guarding their own body? We are responsible to protect our selves. Always blame everyone but yourself.

@AtticusBennett: What’s simple is your mode of reasoning.
If someone knows they are positive and has unprotected sex with someone, that is a crime. What race you are doesn’t matter a whit. Yes, trusting someone may be stupid, but it’s not a crime to take someone at his word.
If he knew he is positive and didn’t wrap it up, then he is a criminal. That’s why he’s heading to jail, and thank god he’s off the streets. Your logic, yammering about unrelated cases, is as tight as water.

Sounds good to me. The fact he knew and didn’t tell the other partner is sick. Not everyone can handle the medicine. Doesn’t work for everyone and there are many side effects. People still die from aids related issues. He got what he deserved hes obviously a sociopath

@Realitycheck:Syphilis is a disease that is treatable but never leaves your body. Same for herpes. How do you know if the person does/doesn’t have meningitis? How could you tell? Does anyone ever ask while they are standing there kissing and embracing their person of interest if they contracted only of those? None of them are exactly a picnic to come across. In NYC a public service billboard went up a few years ago warning the community of meningitis and how it was spreading.

Whether we like it or not we have to accept that we now live in a world where when you have sex with some one its become nothing else but a roll of the dice whether you come out unscathed or not. There should be a lot of questions that arise with this case and verdict. My main question is this: if you put on a condom and it breaks during the climatic moment can you now be charged with attempted murder based on whether the person you had sex with is willing to accept an accidental break after he consented and you told him you were POZ? All he has to do is next is decide if he wants to be vindictive or not. A test that proves it came from you means to me it is your word against his…………I am sure you all see where this is going. That sentence was simply too harsh.

There are loads of blokes like this out there. And there are loads of blokes prepared to have unprotected sex with them.

You can bet the bloke who agrees to have unprotected sex with a stranger on the basis that said stranger says he is HIV negative will then go on and have unprotected sex with another on the same basis – that HE is HIV negative.

So, sure, by all means, put this idiot in jail. But put all the idiots who had sex with him in jail too.

He gonna be on a bummer In prison actually seeking to transmission of HIV but there are bareback some Men seek this the gift now implant the seed fill their hole with cum it can be controlled with medication but there are side effects but its up to the individual if they want to play Russian roulette

He lied about his status people. I know this man. He lived in St. Charles, MO on Lindenwood campus. He knew he had HIV and lied about his status. You deserve jail time for that. If I had Ebola, and lied to people about it—I deserve to be punished for anyone else getting it and the risk I’ve placed others in.

So, who do you believe? The man testified that he did disclose his status. I’ve seen many go after HIV + men with complete disregard for their health and willingly do so without protection. This conviction is irresponsibly severe. There are two parties at fault.

@Bob LaBlah: You confused me there for a second LOL
I agree the sentence is way too harsh and the judge is simply out of touch with the gay world, the reality we as gay people live in.
And to answer your speculations, as Gay men we live a risky life, no bones about that, even the least active of us, can place themselves at risk any time
they have sex with some one, we simply do not know who does what, and
it is a great part of of gay life style in a big city.
As far as diseases, syphilis and other bacterial are easily cured with antibiotics, and HIV is on the brink of a cure, while hepatitis has been cured, in fact the most annoying I would think is herpes, that needs better treatments.
I am surprised nobody has worked on a vaccine for many of those diseases other then HIV, it would save so much grief to so many people gay and straight.

i wonder if anyone who infected the tuskagee airmen with std’s did any jail time? this is wrong as it now takes away any personal responsibility from the people who slept with him and contracted hiv! whether he told them or not , THEY should have taken safe sex precautions and not leave it to a one night stand!

@money718: First, I’m not dumb, but thanks for thinking I am.
Secondly, you can’t predict what will happen to anyone on these meds. They are very caustic to the human body, in a lot of different ways, and just because you are in the medical field doesn’t give you license to tell me or anyone else that it’s a walk in the park. Every time I was put on a new med, my doc would say the same things.

All I can say is the person who is HIV positive, unfortunately, has the higher burden of having to tell his or her partners. That is the only way someone else can make an informed decision whether or not to have sex with them. Yes the other guys are responsible for themselves, but if they contracted HIV from being naive or misinformed, believe me they will have to suffer the consequences to those actions.

If everyone is saying HIV is nothing to be concerned about in this day and age, then why am I still uncomfortable telling my potential sex partners that I am positive? This is a circle of suckiness that needs to end and can only end with a cure. Let’s stop the nonsense, including PrEP, and just demand “the cure” come out now. I’m sick of making these nasty, greedy, unapologetic a-holes rich.

@Merv: Very well said Merv. I am on the 21st year of my sentence for believing a POS who I “loved” and lived with for a number of years.

I put as much blame on myself for being HIV positive, but if he had told me from day 1, our outcome would definitely have been a little different. We still would have been together, just a much safer together.

What concerns me most about this issue is that people actually seem to be endorsing a person’s word as legitimate, adequate protection against STIs/HIV in a real world in which people lie about mundane things like age and hair color. Weren’t we advising against this 2-3 decades ago? Was there a gay vote taken to reverse that recommendation that didn’t include me? Having sex with someone without a barrier because he says he “doesn’t have anything” wasn’t sufficient in 1985 and still isn’t in 2015, and to redefine those parameters puts society at large at great risk for an epidemic that could ultimately be as bad as or worse than AIDS was at the height of the crisis. This is why I refuse to understate the “victims”‘ roles in their “victimhood.”

@Realityis: “All I can say is the person who is HIV positive, unfortunately, has the higher burden of having to tell his or her partners. That is the only way someone else can make an informed decision whether or not to have sex with them. Yes the other guys are responsible for themselves, but if they contracted HIV from being naive or misinformed, believe me they will have to suffer the consequences to those actions.” Yes that is exactly what i’m thinking.

And by the way, if he said that he his HIV+ to his “victims” and they agreed to have unprotected sex with him , then why would his “victims”sue him? They get what they want, no need to sue him.

@Stefano: “And by the way, if he said that he his HIV+ to his “victims” and they agreed to have unprotected sex with him , then why would his “victims”sue him? They get what they want, no need to sue him.”

Have you never heard of the vindictive ex? The person you broke up with, or maybe cheated on, who will stop at nothing to destroy you, including spreading lies about you? It happens All. The. Time. It is quite possible that it happened here. The difference for HIV+ people is that these ridiculous laws allow the vindictive ex to send you to prison for 30 years.

Good. He deserves every day of it. “HIV criminalization” is such a misleading term. He wasn’t criminalized for simply having HIV. His offense was purposely infecting others. It should be called “knowingly spreading HIV criminalization”.

@notevenwrong: Ahhh come on ! “The vindictive ex”…don’t be ridiculous. This is not the case here anyways. “According to court records, he had unprotected sex with MULTIPLE men who he met on hookup apps between the time he tested positive and October 2013, when he was arrested. As a result, he was accused of infecting at least ONE man and exposing FOUR others to the virus.”

We can debate a long time here but the fact is that he is going to jail for what he did. And there is nothing we can do.

The comments here range from “Blame the victim” to “Hang him”. Both extreme, though I’m more shocked by the former. The sentence was too harsh and no doubt tainted by homophobia and [email protected]
BUT, the guy’s behavior was inexcusable and he should be held criminally responsible for his actions. The fact that the guy he infected was also irresponsible does not absolve Johnson of the moral, social and legal obligation to protect his sexual partners from the life-threatening disease he’s carrying. At the very least he should have worn a condom.
The world is full of people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions and, unfortunately like many of the commenters here, those who make excuses for them.

I think most of you are forgetting that there was 30 plus victims that he secretly video taped! I would agree that 30 yrs is harsh had the circumstances been different but video taping 30 + people of which he never wore a condom proves he’s a psychopath and needs to locked up for a long, long time. This wasn’t just some guy who found he was HIV positive and had unprotected sex “a few times” but a guy who purposely put people at risk! It’s as if he preyed on people….and enjoyed it! He’s a serial killer of a different kind!

@Realityis: Again, I apologize for your condition, but treatment and treatment options have improved dramatically since you were infected. It’s definitely not a picnic having HIV, but it it light years from where it once was.

Something kind of outside the discussion we are having, but, it’s also really said that after all of the years of AIDS education, that people in their late teens and early 20’s are still contracting HIV.

Honestly… If he didn’t disclose he is at main fault. As a HIV+ person I always disclose my status even with (when i used to hook up) random hook ups. If is our responsibility as the infected party to be upfront and protect our partners. Even if he did disclose his status, if he then chose not to use protection and transmitted the virus its on him. We (as the infected person) must make the Virus stop at us. We must take responsibility for our actions… Yes the other person is also respondsilbe for deciding to have unprotected sex with someone without knowing 100% that persons status. But that be like saying Well I got a cold at work, someone there had the flu but im to blame i should of worn a surgical mask or asked everyone around me if they were sick before I took a sip from there flu covered coffee mug. NO the person in the office should have taken the precaution 1st to ensure not to get others sick.

@Saint Law: Oh, wonderful! One of his victims were into bareback, so it’s fine to force a bunch of other gay men to live with a deadly virus for the rest of their lives! What a refined morality, you truly deserve the Saint title!

@notevenwrong: Yes, it is curable. However, if you have a blood test done anytime during your lifetime afterward it will still show up. It maybe inactive but it never goes away. The same as hepatitis. It will always be present.

Some one was nice enough to post this article that I think is well worth reading and helps prove my point as to how this shit is getting out of hand. It is well worth the two or three minutes it will take to read it. This is what I mean when I say what is being looked at by the courts are sexual orientation and sadly, in the case of Michael Johnson featured in the Queerty article, race. Seriously, as we now have prisons filled with people on drugs we are soon going to have prisons that are going to amount to concentration camps for people with HIV, many of whom “could” be falsely accused by a vindictive partner/hookup gone bad.

I do not understand that punishment seems way too harsh I believe if you’re throwing up your legs and someone says I am negative they can turn positive at any time so easy to fix that use a rubber dumbass

@Stefano: Your missing his point. It’s like pulling the gay panic defense. They’re relying on a homophobic judge and/or jury. Two versions of the story here but the minute he walked into the courtroom he was already guilty in their eyes.

@Bob LaBlah, that is a common misconception, but if syphilis is treated the bacterium will be eliminated completely. The blood test tests for antibodies, which remain after the infection is cured. The antibodies only indicate that your body mounted an immune response to the infection in the past, not that you still have it. All of us still have antibodies to the childhood diseases that we had, and even to the vaccines that we got as children even if we never even got the disease.

@Justinius Phoenix, so what happens if you use a condom that breaks and, heaven forbid, transmit HIV to a partner who then turns around and vindictively blames you in court and lies about the circumstances?

Who are the jury going to believe? The poor little victim, or you?

By the way, did you now that even if you use a condom and don’t transmit HIV you can be convicted of a felony in several states?

@notevenwrong: Don’t leave off Hepatitis. Strains of C are in people who have never even been sick from it. It says some where along the line you got exposed to it and not necessarily in a sexual situation. As I said having sex with someone, even if you guys end up as life partners is still a roll of the dice.

Here is some thing that I found very interesting. There is a lymphoma cancer called Castlemans Disease that was discovered in the 1950’s by doctor Benjamin Castleman. Again, that was the 1950’s when he discovered this form of lymphoma. For some reason or other it is not unusual for people with HIV to have this form of lymphoma. I don’t know why but for some reason I just wonder is it possible it, HIV, was there all along and it took years for people to notice it.

When HIV came upon the scene back in the 1980’s we were told that it took at least 30 days for it to incubate. Then it change to “there is no definite incubation period”, which in my mind made sense because people who lost sex partners and had themselves test, got a negative result and more or less stayed celibate for months (out of fear) eventually got sick.

Call it “the old school mentality” but personally, I STILL believe it is possible for the HIV to linger in the body undetected until it decides to surface and cause havoc, “newer, accurate tests” be damned. I am not buying that shit that was reported a decade ago that a “new” HIV strain has been discovered. It was the same damn one that was there all along only they just found it. In my mind, that is etched in GRANITE. Case closed. Jury dismissed.

@Stefano: I can’t but that’s the point. How do we know he didn’t tell them beforehand? He said that he did after all.

Gay panic was a jury believing a thug over a gay man even though it was laughable to us. I’ve been in one of those as a witness. A gay guy was killed by a young thug who used that as a defense and got off. This was in 2000 outside of SF too. The guy was guilty as sin but jury’s are still very homophobic.

I haven’t read every single comment here but the first few are excellent examples of why non-disclosure and knowing exposure need to be treated as criminal acts with heavy penalties under the law. There’s a subgroup of men, gay, bi and straight, who have come to believe that they are justified in harming others in order to obtain sexual satisfaction. It’s a small subgroup, but one capable of inflicting a lot of injury on a lot of women and men. As we see above, the human mind excels at finding ways to justify conduct which is manifestly evil. These methods include:

– Focusing on the victim’s conduct (“They are as much to blame!”)
– Changing the subject (“What about other diseases?” “This is because he’s Black!”)
– Using rhetorical tricks (“criminalizing HIV”)
– Belittling the harm (“AIDS is a treatable disease!”)

When you have a mentality like this, you can’t rely on moral arguments to get people to police their own behavior. They are too far gone. You need to have an external deterrent. These folks are driven by self-interest and respond only to incentives and disincentives. And the best disincentive to exposing others or failing to disclose is a lengthy prison sentence. So good outcome in this case. The sociopathic commenters above should take very careful note of this case and numerous others and ask for whom the bell tolls, for it may well toll for them.

@Stache99, yes, and what’s sad is the big gay rights organizations do nothing to help guys like this, who happen to be mostly minorities, who are being criminalized for “sex while HIV+ and black.” Nobody important is ever going to stand up for this kid.

@Jacob23: “The sociopathic commenters above should take very careful note of this case and numerous others and ask for whom the bell tolls, for it may well toll for them.”

Make SURE you remember that. Who knows, one day the tide could turn against you and THEN you will understand what the word “mercy” means. You said/claim you haven’t read every comment posted and I believe you. I offer this post added by a commenter who solidifies my belief that this is going to get out of hand, one way or the other. I do hope you read it. And by the way, these guys were white and live in the midwest. You do not give people this much leeway in determine who will and who won’t spend the rest of their life, more or less behind bars based on vindictive accusations. Its a shame you didn’t read all the comments.

@money718: So tell me money, what are you and your fellow health care professionals doing to rush bringing out the cure (which we all know there is) to the public?
Could it be that the health care industry doesn’t want to bring the cure out yet because they are also profiting on both the HIV positive and negative populations?

I mean c’mon, now you have patients coming in 4 times a year instead of 1 and probably getting kickbacks from Big Pharma to promote the poison you are giving the negative population, which, BTW, is supposed to be used with other safer sex practices, e.g. condoms, but no one cares if it’s actually being used that way. Oh and that’s from Truvada’s website..

It boggles my mind that people can be so greedy and uncaring that they would rather make a buck than give a dam about someone who has to deal with the f**king reality of lipodystrophy for 40 years or that people are actually still dying from this disease. Oh and I have a new lipodystrophy side effect which started after I went on Truvada… What fun.

So let’s say maybe 30 years is a bit too harsh… well at least it’ll make the next asshole think twice about doing it. So that’s a win in my book.
And we all know he will get a much lighter sentence on appeal.

@notevenwrong: That’s not what happened here. You can save that argument for another case, another article and another time.
THIS GUY acted with reckless disregard for the lives of others and knowingly transmitted HIV to at least one of them.

@jasentylar: @notevenwrong: I’m Black. Don’t play the race card with me. Scum is scum. This guy also testified that he found out in Missouri on Lindenwood campus visit to the nurse that he had HIV. He lied. There is proof that he was informed of his status in 2011 in his home state of Indiana. He says that he doesn’t remember that though. Fucking scum. Who forgets being told that they’re HIV+??? NO ONE. SO, further proof of his lies leads me to believe he didn’t disclose his status.

You guys are morons for this CNN article. I don’t feel sorry for someone that breaks the law. You reap what you sow. You are bound by law to disclose to your future sexual partners your positive status. Another case where he didn’t because he took other precautions (condom and his viral load was low). He is still required to disclose. When he didn’t, he broke the law. He deserved his jail time. I like this law because it allows you the choice.

30 yrs is way too severe a punishment. But he does deserve to spend some time in prison. It is his word against the word of at least four victims who did not know each other so to me that proves he is lying. And as for taking into account advances in medications, it is dooubtful he was on meds yet being he was so newly diagnosed and if he was it probably had not been eough time for him to have an undetectable viral load so to me he willfully was out to poz those he met for bareback sex. That is criminal and despicable.

@jwtraveler, @jasentyler, you must be psychic to claim to know what happened in this case regarding consent. Even playing along with the rules of this ridiculous law, the accused said he informed the accuser. There is no proof that he didn’t. In the absence of certainty about this, the burden of proof is on the prosecution that he isn’t innocent, last time I checked on the workings of the U.S. criminal justice system. But of course we know the U.S. criminal justice system only works for a certain class of people.

@Jacob23: Nobody, I repeat, NOT A SINGLE DAMNED BODY, has endorsed what this guy did as right — either legally or morally. Knowingly exposing someone to HIV without telling him is undoubtedly reprehensible. Period. How and ever, in a country wherein an asshole rich kid who killed four people while driving drunk, the bankers who brought down the entire U.S. economy, and cops who murder unarmed civilians get off Scott free, to sentence someone to 30 years of prison time for a crime that involved obtaining explicit consent from victims who knew the risks going in — including the possibility that he could have been lying — is not justice. At. All. Johnson absolutely should be punished for what he did, but I REFUSE to absolve his victims of even a small degree of responsibility for their part in creating their circumstances.

@jasentylar: Queen, your haste to get even with whom ever it was that infected you has caused blindness. If you can’t see that this guy did that to be nothing other than vindictive and how people with HIV are now being sentenced to prison for life without having infected someone else shows you must have a problem.

@tdh1980: There is no such thing as “legally right.” There is legal and there is illegal. And there are plenty of people here who think that transmission of HIV should not be illegal, even when it is done knowingly. There recently was another guy from Missouri, a white middle-aged guy, who may have exposed up to 300 individuals. When asked why he did this, he responded “I have a fear of rejection.” And he had defenders as well. He later got in further trouble while in prison when he made statements about tainting other prisoners’ food with his bodily fluids. (He claimed he was joking.) Lambda Legal and a number of “HIV activists” don’t want that guy to spend even an hour in jail, and would have him skip away to expose another 300 people.

As for the moral side of the issue, I didn’t say that anyone proclaimed his conduct to be morally right. What they are doing is what the human mind excels at, i.e., coming up with myriad ways to shift blame, draw false analogies, belittle the harm, and generally create enough of a muddle so that conduct like this can go on without a feeling of guilt. They don’t really need to extol the conduct; it is enough that they run interference for it, to ensure that it can’t be isolated and condemned.

@Bob LeBlah:

“Who knows, one day the tide could turn against you and THEN you will understand what the word “mercy” means.”

I have no idea what this means. What tide? This is about individual responsibility for one’s own conduct. When I spoke of the bell tolling, I meant that if any of the commenters here (who are excusing or minimizing the wrestler’s actions) are doing the same thing themselves, they might face the same fate as the wrestler. It is, of course, possible that I too could find myself exactly where this wrestler is – facing a 30 year prison sentence. But if that should ever happen, it wouldn’t be because a “tide” lifted me up and put me in the court dock. It would be because I would have decided to take certain actions which put others at severe risk of great harm and even death. I would rather lose my own life before doing that to another person. But if I ever did, then the bell should indeed toll for me.

@Stache99: A friend emailed me the article. Thank you for thinking enough to repost it. I don’t know how I missed that article but some how I did.

@Jacob23: Since putting two and two together to come up with four is too difficult for you to do I am going to bow out of the conversation between you and I. Take care and just remember what you said and what others WERE saying here: no one condoned what he did.